The coming reconfiguration of Latter-day Saint politics

[Guest]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The 12th Article of Faith is a general principle and not an overriding mandate. Even the leaders who wrote it did not follow it. Plural Marriage, illegal immigration into Mexico, sending soldiers to fight the Mexican government, fighting the US army in the Utah War, and in many cases in the past (not so much now) proselyting illegally.

I am under no moral obligation to support deportation efforts and I believe this nation is cutting itself off from the blessings of heaven by closing its borders and forcing out those who came here seeking a better life. I don't care what the law says. In any case prophecy is clear that efforts to stem the tide of immigration will fail so why bother?

You spoke to one part of my post, but not the part about obeying such laws as long as, "freedom of conscience is protected", or freedom of belief. Utah was a territory then, not a State, and the Governor of that territory was BY, who deemed polygamy legal and moral. With few exceptions only those here illegally and commiting crimes are being deported. You do not have to support deportation, unless you are in law enforcement. All can have their opinions of how they view such laws. Maybe a reread of the entire post will make clear what I was saying. As far as closing borders, no one is suggesting any such thing, just establishing our boarders so that only immigrants can enter legally. We are a Nation of immigrants, and will always be, but it must be done in orderly, to keep criminals from freely walking into our Nation. Many of the countries who have people flowing over our borders, when others do the same to their countries they are locked up on the spot. In fact most every Nation on Earth imposes harsh sentences when people enter their countries illegally. We just catch (when we can) and put them on buses, and send them back. Also, we all seek for better lifes, but those of our Faith and of most Faith's are not permitted to break the law in doing so. I am retired Law Enforcement, and have friends who came here illegally, even the man living next to me. I am under no obligation to turn them in to the police, even if I did and they had no criminal record, nothing would be done to them. Also since I am no longer a sworn officer, it is none of my business. If I were poor and living near a country that would give me a better life, the temptation would be great, but would it be just to break a law just because I did not agree with it? 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While, "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" is a  hallmark of Mormon behavior in every country on this planet, one must always ask what that law really is.  Any top executive of a state or country may issue executive orders, but the crucial question is always whether such orders are lawful.  For that determination, we depend upon the judiciary.  In other countries, there may be no judiciary worthy of the name, and the orders may be recklessly carried out, as for mass executions in the Philippines by Pres Duterte, just as the extermination order against Mormons was issued by the Governor of Missouri, just as the extermination of Jews and Gypsies was ordered by Hitler, just as illegal trials, gulags, executions were ordered by Stalin.  If men were angels, we would not need a Constitution -- which was established to guarantee a govt of laws not men.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all executive orders, judicial decisions, and legislation must comply with it.

Executive orders, can be challenged and must be upheld by the courts. Every other issue is spelled out in D&C 134...guess no one did or will take the time to read it.  

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Executive orders, can be challenged and must be upheld by the courts. Every other issue is spelled out in D&C 134...guess no one did or will take the time to read it.  

I have read D&C 134, which is an excellent and realistic declaration of belief on govt and law.  It is not a revelation, but is well thought out, and even takes an approach to slavery which matches the New Testament Christian Church policy of non-interference.  Adhering to that policy in his 1844 presidential campaign, Joseph Smith proposed that the U.S. govt buy the slaves from their masters.  Killing him also killed his idea, and guaranteed that his Civil War prophecy would come true (D&C 87).

Talmudic Jewish scholars discussed this same basic problem early on, concluding that, as long as the laws of a state were general and applied equally to all (Jew and non-Jew), they must be obeyed.  The Aramaic talmudic phrase was dina d'malkuta dina, my first lesson in studying Jewish law many years ago.

[halconero]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They also have their own problems. I prefer an idealized version of the US system but the US system is currently very difficult to idealize.  

Eh, in my experience living in both countries MLA's and MP's are way more responsive and in touch at the local level than US representatives are. We have small ridings and zero problem with gerrymandering.

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

What else does a new LDS political pluralism mean other than large numbers of members abandoning conservatism in favor of more liberal/progressive oriented political philosophies? After all the fancy rhetoric, isn't this what it all boils down to?

It may mean redefining the boundaries.  It may mean bringing consistency to one's political leanings, across issue-type of specific issue.  It certainly was not intended to mean bi-partisan rhetoric, though. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It may mean redefining the boundaries.  It may mean bringing consistency to one's political leanings, across issue-type of specific issue.  It certainly was not intended to mean bi-partisan rhetoric, though. 

I don't know how big this will be.  The church is still a top-down organization that tends to support like-minded individuals that tend to be conservative republicans.  Too much populism would perhaps lead to pressure to change the organization itself.  The church flirted with an egalitarian approach early on and found it didn't work.

[thesometimesaint]

Laws, and polices are governments' moral statements. There are laws against sleeping under bridges, and/or eating out of trash cans. They apply to rich and poor alike.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/2/2017 at 2:32 PM, Bobbieaware said:

So because the current executive administration is temporarily taking a hard line on admitting refugees from terrorist-infested states and may be caught in some future scandals, a large proportion of LDS Church membership is going to feel compelled to move over to the side of an -- at very least -- equally corrupt and scandal-ridden political party? Won't it be wonderful to see the day when millions of formerly pro-life Latter-day Saints come to support Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion on demand? I'm sure the Lord will feel most pleased.

Since this thread is clearly political in nature, notwithstanding any protestations to the contrary, I will give the opinion I did in a response comment to Daniel Peterson's blog post about this subject.

I don't know about any reconfiguration of LDS politics, but if the Democrats hope to have any future viability, they had better get off the conspiracy theory kick and come to terms with the real reasons they lost the election.

Furthermore, no wishful thinking about a reconfiguration in local politics will change the fact that according to recent polling, if the election were held again, Hillary Clinton still loses -- and this time she would lose the popular as well as the electoral vote.

 

[ttribe]

On 5/2/2017 at 1:32 PM, Bobbieaware said:

So because the current executive administration is temporarily taking a hard line on admitting refugees from terrorist-infested states and may be caught in some future scandals, a large proportion of LDS Church membership is going to feel compelled to move over to the side of an -- at very least -- equally corrupt and scandal-ridden political party? Won't it be wonderful to see the day when millions of formerly pro-life Latter-day Saints come to support Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion on demand? I'm sure the Lord will feel most pleased.

Brother (Glenn) Beck?  Is that you?

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since this thread is clearly political in nature, notwithstanding any protestations to the contrary, I will give the opinion I did in a response comment to Daniel Peterson's blog post about this subject.

I don't know about any reconfiguration of LDS politics, but if the Democrats hope to have any future viability, they had better get off the conspiracy theory kick and come to terms with the real reasons they lost the election.

Furthermore, no wishful thinking about a reconfiguration in local politics will change the fact that according to recent polling, if the election were held again, Hillary Clinton still loses -- and this time she would lose the popular as well as the electoral vote.

 

The lesson to learn there is to wonder why the hell the Democrats ran such a ridiculously unpopular candidate. In the last election if either party had run a reasonably sane and likeable candidate (Kasich, Biden, Sanders) they would have won with relative ease. Instead both parties merit this comment:

 

[thesometimesaint]

If you voted for Trump; Congratulations.

Edited May 4, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since this thread is clearly political in nature, notwithstanding any protestations to the contrary, I will give the opinion I did in a response comment to Daniel Peterson's blog post about this subject.

I don't know about any reconfiguration of LDS politics, but if the Democrats hope to have any future viability, they had better get off the conspiracy theory kick and come to terms with the real reasons they lost the election.

Furthermore, no wishful thinking about a reconfiguration in local politics will change the fact that according to recent polling, if the election were held again, Hillary Clinton still loses -- and this time she would lose the popular as well as the electoral vote.

 

There's nothing in this piece, the OP or this topic that is about Hillary Clinton losing, though.  I do question though, as we move down the road we're on in this country, whether members of the Church will continue to follow the lead of conservative Evangelicalism and by default align themselves with the republican party.  Continually jumping to one side sounds good, until you realize doing so marks you as an enabler of that which you can't get behind. 

Quote

In the future, LDS political action will necessarily crisscross the partisan divide if a vibrant pluralism is to become a reality.

 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The lesson to learn there is to wonder why the hell the Democrats ran such a ridiculously unpopular candidate. In the last election if either party had run a reasonably sane and likeable candidate (Kasich, Biden, Sanders) they would have won with relative ease. Instead both parties merit this comment:

 

That's a rather simplistic take on it, I suppose. Here's another: Trump won, it seems, because he tapped into a fomenting angst of those who have felt forgotten.  Something polling experts weren't able to understand.  Clinton still seems baffled by it, explaining as other's fault she lost when she was the shoe-in. 

[BlueDreams]

On 5/2/2017 at 3:27 PM, clarkgoble said:

Pluralism generally means both views and tolerance for both views are present. I think we have that now even though Mormons are fairly Republican in the US (and fairly conservative in Canada). But there have always been Democrats and neither party has a monopoly on truth. Heaven knows that while I'm conservative I can find plenty to criticize in the contemporary GOP.

Pluralism doesn't mean relatively even distribution of views. Rather it's respecting each other's views. Now I'd be the first to say the current political climate isn't as pluralistic as I'd like. Both sides tend to demonize the other far too much. Respecting people for a difference of opinion doesn't happen as much as it ought. But looking at many countries I think we still do reasonably well overall. We definitely need to improve though. 

Globally and structurally (as in what we official state) I agree. Culturally and in the US....we still have some room to grow, speaking as a person whose fairly liberal. I think many members do have a live and let live attitude with politics. But there is still a good chunk who see specific party lines as basically antithetical to gospel principles (well, at least the ones they promote) and the people that hold them as best misguided. Personally I had at least one in a heated debate question my effectiveness as a missionary because I didn't take a hard line stance against abortion or other conservative perspectives. And during the election cycle there was a short post from Daniel Peterson question our young adults upbringings at BYU for supporting Sanders (see here). This is not exactly the bastion of pluralism culturally, in the US. I think that's in part the problem when the bulk of the church has ended up republican by default. At some point that predominating view is assumed correct by affiliation and their own blindspots as a philosophy of man are less visible than the democratic or liberal philosophies of man. In truth, all political parties have their positions that can obviously be supported by the gospel or become congruent with the gospel (at the very least) and all of them have things that are more dissonant with the gospel message. I think in practice, there's a solid percentage of us that are far from recognizing that. 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

On 5/2/2017 at 1:28 PM, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678972/Spencer-Fluhman-The-coming-reconfiguration-of-Latter-day-Saint-politics.html

I'm excited to see the future unfold.  I think great things are ahead of us, as a church community.  I don't think we need to make this about politics, but I found the linked piece quite interesting.  I think in the near future we'll see some changes not just in our political affiliations but in many things.  Let's face it the above quote from Fluhman nails something about us--offering "pat explanations of what constitutes a "moral" position" won't cut it anymore.

He's wrong here, "Historians make poor prophets, but it may be that the current administration’s moral lapses and brewing scandals will propel the statement’s prescient vision of the LDS political future"

He doesn't know if a historian would make a poor prophet.  Methinks he's trying to sound humble, as an historian. 

Yep.  But that seems obvious. 

I'd agrre that offering pat explanations of what constitutes a "moral position" won't cut it anymore....but I think that cultural inertia is a real thing. There are already statements that run counter to a conservative republican platform by the church. But when those are aired, the religiously political conservatives often have a hard time with it. They don't necessarily change their views, but find work arounds what was stated, ignored it, or fight it outright. I can think of three or four policies that do not fit perfectly with modern US conservatism.

The refugees have already been mentioned v. the anti-refugee fear based rhetoric 

Seeking kinder more lenient immigration policies that are more family friendly v. an increased immigration enforcement stance

The church's official abortion stance v. a traditional pro-life stance (I'm not saying it alligns also with a traditional pro-choice stance....it doesn't fit either camp 100%)

The environment and conservationism (see here and here) v. several varying republican based policies and climate change deniers.

I'm not saying this to be a wet blanket to his hopes. I think there's a bit more flexibility in our younger generations with less hair-trigger loyalty to the republican party even if the views are largely still conservative....minus a few points. I just think this will take more time. At the very least, I do think pointing to the inherent moral superiority of the republican party over the democrat has definitely taken a hit in this election cycle. But several of the policies and actions I find most abhorrent and counter to our american ideals/constitution are often repackaged in their minds to be reasonable and better off in preserving the nation. In someways there's a taste of irony for me in what I'm watching. In someways it feels like the two camps just traded note cards in both defense and criticisms of the other party.

 

With luv,

BD 

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Adhering to that policy in his 1844 presidential campaign, Joseph Smith proposed that the U.S. govt buy the slaves from their masters.  Killing him also killed his idea, and guaranteed that his Civil War prophecy would come true (D&C 87).

I loved that idea when young but realistically even in the 1840's let alone the 1860's it was financially prohibitive to buy all the slaves. 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Culturally and in the US....we still have some room to grow, speaking as a person whose fairly liberal. I think many members do have a live and let live attitude with politics. But there is still a good chunk who see specific party lines as basically antithetical to gospel principles (well, at least the ones they promote) and the people that hold them as best misguided

I definitely agree there. Most don't care but it's not hard to find members from almost any political persuasion who think their political views are the ones entailed by the gospel. While even most of those who hold such views are tolerant many aren't. In particular many don't think about how stating such views as the correct ones in Church makes others feel.

Quote

I think that's in part the problem when the bulk of the church has ended up republican by default.

I don't think it's "by default." I think there are reasons for the shift to Republicanism. I am curious whether Trump and the breakdown in the GOP affects that.

Edited May 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[BlueDreams]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I loved that idea when young but realistically even in the 1840's let alone the 1860's it was financially prohibitive to buy all the slaves. 

I definitely agree there. Most don't care but it's not hard to find members from almost any political persuasion who think their political views are the ones entailed by the gospel. While even most of those who hold such views are tolerant many aren't. In particular many don't think about how stating such views as the correct ones in Church makes others feel.

I don't think it's "by default." I think there are reasons for the shift to Republicanism. I am curious whether Trump and the breakdown in the GOP affects that.

I'm not saying there's no reasons, but after a couple generations often the initial reasons get blurred by just tradition: particularly for those not necessarily super invested in politics or very informed into political/social issues in general. They're more likely to follow common colloquial sound bytes about an issue than to have thought it out and weighed the pros and cons to it. It happens in every community where there's an overwhelming majority that leans a certain way. It becomes not just about community interests but traditional expectations. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 4, 2017 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's a rather simplistic take on it, I suppose. Here's another: Trump won, it seems, because he tapped into a fomenting angst of those who have felt forgotten.  Something polling experts weren't able to understand.  Clinton still seems baffled by it, explaining as other's fault she lost when she was the shoe-in. 

He did tap into a kind of angst, the same angst for change that gave Bernie a shot in the arm in the Primaries. The difference of course is that Trump fed that angst with the political equivalent of a cross between an MLM sales pitch and a demagogue inciting a mob. If he were smart and motivated he could be dangerous. For better or worse he is not that bright and is very lazy about achieving his professed objectives. He is more like a little boy seeking respect and love. I can think of no other reason that he is still acting like the campaign is still going on instead of, you know, leading. He excels at adversarial rhetoric but is a terrible leader and a terrible manager.

Edited May 4, 2017 by The Nehor

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I loved that idea when young but realistically even in the 1840's let alone the 1860's it was financially prohibitive to buy all the slaves. 

.............................................................

Actually it was quite possible.  The sale of public lands was always a way of garnering large amounts of cash with which to endow colleges and to pay for public works.  Why not to buy slaves?  We certainly had enough land which we had gained through the Louisiana Purchase, through taking native American lands, and then through stealing much of Mexico (and the bogus Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).

Britain and the rest of their Empire had made slavery illegal, thereby coming to terms with the ethical and moral implications early on.  American "exceptionalism" has been noteworthy for sloth and unwillingness to put goodness and justice first.  We often talk a good game, but . . .

[mrmarklin]

If anyone thinks that Mormons are going to leave conservatism (the doctrine of personal responsibility) to frothing at the mouth liberalism (I use the modern sense of liberalism) they're nuts.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's a rather simplistic take on it, I suppose. Here's another: Trump won, it seems, because he tapped into a fomenting angst of those who have felt forgotten.  Something polling experts weren't able to understand.  Clinton still seems baffled by it, explaining as other's fault she lost when she was the shoe-in. 

Trump didn't win the popular vote. Further his win in the Electoral college was one of the smallest in history. Clinton was never a shoe-in. She was about 2% ahead of Trump.

 

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

If anyone thinks that Mormons are going to leave conservatism (the doctrine of personal responsibility) to frothing at the mouth liberalism (I use the modern sense of liberalism) they're nuts.

Personal responsibility conservative style. "Keep your government hands off my medicare".

[Danzo]

23 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Executive orders, can be challenged and must be upheld by the courts.   

Ever try challenging one?

I have,  4 years later and one victory in the court of appeals and I am still fighting. (the state want's to appeal to the supreme court)

It ain't easy and and it isn't for the faint of heart.

 

[Danzo]

Political Parties are amoral, they have no feeling, no positions, no ideas. They are organizations, tools to promote ideas of the individuals that are in them.  They can only be as moral as the people that are in them.

I am a republican precinct committee person.  The reason I do this is not because I think the republicans are doing a good job (if that were the case there would be no reason for me to get involved), I do this because I want to try and influence the party to stop doing things that I feel are immoral and promote the things I think are moral. Its a long shot, but I try to do what I can. 

I would encourage people to join a political party and try to use their influence to change the party (democrat or republican or whatever), rather than thinking that their only option is to pick between two corrupt people.  

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Trump didn't win the popular vote. Further his win in the Electoral college was one of the smallest in history. Clinton was never a shoe-in. She was about 2% ahead of Trump.

It was very much a race between two detested figures. Had either side nominated someone likable they'd have won with a landslide.